CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?

[infojunky]

If you could tweak one thing, what would it be?

That is difficult thing to pin down. Considering I have been using a heavily modified version of AHL for combat.

The thing is I started off early in Traveller considering the rules where optional or really modular. There are tons of 3rd party works that give their view of what is Traveller.

 

[aramis]

The top of my list would be "use the DGP/2300/MT task system".

#2 would be a separate pen from damage non-table-driven combat system based upon striker.

#3 would be equalizing the expected skill totals between advanced and basic gen.

MT happens to do all three....
... but I'd rather see CT LBB 1-3 for the rest of it.

I wouldn't mind incorporating the T20 trade system... that's #4.
I'd prefer airframe designs to spend some tonnage on it. Hmm... that's also in T20!

 

[robject]

T20 did a lot of things well.

 

[McPerth]

Just one comment about the thread: law of unintended consequences makes quite probable you have to change more things if you change a single one...

 

[infojunky]

Too much ground is covered by this question.

Honestly character generation, I am kinda in some range between MT’s basic and CEs. Potential for extra skill per term and number of zero level skills.

As for combat I use a heavily modified AHL, it works well with characters, while a lot of Striker doesn’t.

Then we get to ships. IMHO a lot of the gadgets in Book5 need to be expressed in Book2 terms. Book5 is great for fleets banging on each other but doesn’t scale down to Adventure Class ships where most games are at.

Now I know we all have are own hobby horse to ride, maybe sharing a explicit fix for one thing might be good idea.

 

[Original_Carl]

Personally, I'm in a 1977 LBB renaissance. I'm using RAW and I don't really want to change anything yet.

Neat thread, though.

-Carl

 

[robject]

Personally, I'm in a 1977 LBB renaissance. I'm using RAW and I don't really want to change anything yet.

Neat thread, though.

-Carl

+1 for retro fun!

 

[robject]

Honestly character generation, I am kinda in some range between MT’s basic and CEs. Potential for extra skill per term and number of zero level skills.

Marc Miller recently commented how FEW skills a Book 1 character gets. It's so sparse you can just feel the difference in what skills MEAN between Book 1 and... everything that came after it.

Then we get to ships. IMHO a lot of the gadgets in Book5 need to be expressed in Book2 terms.

That's fun to do, too. I'll take that as your suggestion -- it's an interesting one.

 

[mike wightman]

I like the characters to have few but broad skills.

Add level zero skills due to terms served in a career just so the player remembers they can attempt them.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Marc Miller recently commented how FEW skills a Book 1 character gets. It's so sparse you can just feel the difference in what skills MEAN between Book 1 and... everything that came after it.

LBB1 characters are ... let's not mince words here ... skill starved.
You basically need to be 40+ years old before you have even a hope of having a moderately useful skillset for a Traveller campaign setting.

The fact that the experience system (LLB2, p42-43) only allows you to permanently add +1 skill to a skill you already have at least 1 skill point in AFTER 8 YEARS basically means that in the context of a campaign it's nigh impossible to raise your skills beyond mustering out skill levels while adventuring/travelling using the Rules As Written.

Skills starvation creates a dynamic where ensemble casts of characters with lots of specializations to "cover all the bases" becomes more valuable ... but it also means that LBB4-7 characters wind up with way more skills than LBB1 or LBB S4 characters. That differential then basically means that as a Player you're "an idiot" if you generate characters using anything other than the expanded character generation systems of LBB4-7 when it comes to skills.

Ideally speaking, you'd want to raise LBB1 and LBB S4 up to the skill quantity offered by the LBB4-7 expanded systems (or at least get closer) so the differential wasn't as large.

It would also be nice to play a Traveller campaign where you weren't old to the point of being decrepit before you have even moderately useful skill levels. I mean, people ought to be able to have at least some useful skill levels by say ... 26 ... right?

 

[Condottiere]

Life begins at forty.

It's when you have the time, experience, and resources to go 'venturing.

 

[infojunky]

Personally, I'm in a 1977 LBB renaissance. I'm using RAW and I don't really want to change anything yet.

Neat thread, though.

-Carl

Heh, that was tho point I did my restart too.

 

[aramis]

LBB1 characters are ... let's not mince words here ... skill starved.[snip]
Ideally speaking, you'd want to raise LBB1 and LBB S4 up to the skill quantity offered by the LBB4-7 expanded systems (or at least get closer) so the differential wasn't as large.

It would also be nice to play a Traveller campaign where you weren't old to the point of being decrepit before you have even moderately useful skill levels. I mean, people ought to be able to have at least some useful skill levels by say ... 26 ... right?

Essentially, MegaTraveller does this. It adds Special Duty and allows high Special Duty, commission, or promotion rolls to generate a second skill receipt each. It also educed the number of weapon skills, but does list the included CT weapon skulls, so you can readily backport.

MT characters are 100% backportable to a game with all the Bk 1, 4, 5, 6, & 7 skills in use.

 

[Original_Carl]

LBB1 characters are ... let's not mince words here ... skill starved.
You basically need to be 40+ years old before you have even a hope of having a moderately useful skillset for a Traveller campaign setting.

Hi Spinward Flow -- I politely disagree with this point of view. (I know, "Oh boy!" )

I believe that LBB Traveller assumes that every adventuring character has the ability to do pretty much anything: shoot a pistol, drive a car, fly an air/raft, operate a computer, etc. You don't need Skill-1 in something to do it. This is my first point of disagreement with calling them skill-starved. You could even fly a starship without a Pilot- skill -- even if the computer didn't offer a Pilot-1 program. You'd simply have to roll for every task, and not just the hard ones.

The skills a character gets in LBB are the things that character is really good at. To me this means talent, shaped with training and honed with experience. If you're Pistol-1 (or however you do it, I do it like that, some do Revolver-1 or Self-Load-1 -- whatever) that, to me, means you've been to AIT or OCS or NRA-school or whatever and had more than a few hours of instruction and you've had some experience doing it under stress.

For my own games, that means if you have Skill-1, you won't be rolling for those things for "easy" checks. Skill-2 will get you out of "challenging" checks and Skill-3 out of "difficult" checks. I even extend this to combat in some cases. It depends on circumstances, of course, but I'm the kind of Referee who believes in rolling only when there is a reasonable doubt to the success of an action.

I think the later supplements of Traveller (looking at you, Book 4: Mercenary) crept into what I'd call skill-bloat. T5 (which I will always love) is kind of the end-game of this where you assume that apart from a small group of very general life-skills, the adventuring character has no capabilities outside what is explicitly defined on the sheet. Now, today, we see a character with 3 Skill-1 entries and understandably, we don't see a lot of potential in that character. Some might even say, "Skill-starved."

LBB Traveller is a very special game in this regard. It assumes that adventuring characters can do pretty much everything already, and that in some things, they are VERY skilled and those things are represented by Skill-# entries.

That's my take on it.

 

[Original_Carl]

FWIW -- I like LBB because I can put the character on one side of a 3x5 card and still have room for notes and doodles. Can't do that with T5.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hi Spinward Flow -- I politely disagree with this point of view. (I know, "Oh boy!" )

:rofl:

I believe that LBB Traveller assumes that every adventuring character has the ability to do pretty much anything: shoot a pistol, drive a car, fly an air/raft, operate a computer, etc. You don't need Skill-1 in something to do it. This is my first point of disagreement with calling them skill-starved. You could even fly a starship without a Pilot- skill -- even if the computer didn't offer a Pilot-1 program. You'd simply have to roll for every task, and not just the hard ones.

Game mechanically speaking, the interpretation for that would be that the character has Skill-0 in everything (in a LBB context). Given that there are precious few things that actually require skill levels of 1+ for things, that's certainly one way to go with the interpretation ... although, if you do that then what is Jack of All Trades for? Seriously, read the J-o-T skill description in LBB1.81 p20 and you'll see that having Skill-0 in anything and everything is exactly what J-o-T skill is supposed to be.

By the way, here's what I found in LBB1.81 on the subject, for reference.

A newly generated character is singularly unequipped to deal with the adventuring universe, having neither the expertise nor the experience necessary for the active life.

All player-characters have an innate weapon expertise, in all weapons, of zero. Acquisition of a weapon skill boosts this to level-1. Additional acquisitions of expertise in the same weapon increase the present level by one.

Default Skills: Often, some characters will have no skills appropriate to a given situation. A journey across a vacuum plain may be called for, and no one has vacc suit skill. In such cases, the referee may indicate that a l l individuals not otherwise skilled have vacc suit-0. A level of 0 for a skill indicates that the individual can undertake ordinary activities, but i s not experienced enough to try dangerous activities or fancy actions. Level-0 indicates an orientation to the skill by an experienced person; it should not be taken as a stepping stone to level-1. Skills appropriate for level-0 are: airlraft, ATV, forward observer, steward, vacc suit, and weapons.

For my own games, that means if you have Skill-1, you won't be rolling for those things for "easy" checks. Skill-2 will get you out of "challenging" checks and Skill-3 out of "difficult" checks. I even extend this to combat in some cases. It depends on circumstances, of course, but I'm the kind of Referee who believes in rolling only when there is a reasonable doubt to the success of an action.

And that's fine as a House Rule.
Where things fall down is that it's not a Rules As Written deal (at least, not in CT).

I think the later supplements of Traveller (looking at you, Book 4: Mercenary) crept into what I'd call skill-bloat.

Aye.
LBB4-7 certainly did encourage skills bloat on character sheets.

Probably a more interesting way of handling the situation would be to assume that a character starting at 18 has one Skill-0 skill that can be put on their character sheet (let the Player pick freely) before going to College or entering a Service. Then for each 4 year term of service, even if "aborted" by injury (or whatever, so you don't serve out the full 4 year term), the character gains an additional Skill-0 slot which can be "spent" by the Player to round out their skills set. So rather than spending your Skill-0 and then randomly getting that skill off a table on a roll (turning it into Skill-1 and "wasting" your Skill-0 pick) during character generation, instead you make all your Skill-0 picks at the end of character generation in skills you character does NOT have Skill-1+ in (so a bit of deconfliction there for the convenience of everyone's sanity).

Again, something of a house rule, but it does help with the "skill starved" default nature of LBB1 character generation.

 

[mike wightman]

A lot of the skills have no penalty for unskilled use - so you can attempt a saving throw and since 2d6 is a pretty forgiving probability range your chance for success isn't bad until the referee has a high target number in mind. Remember that the examples in the skills section are not 'tablets of stone', they are just an illustration of how a particular skill saving throw could be used in a given situation.
As I said way up thread one of the greatest omissions from revised editions of Traveller was the removal of the sentence that makes this explicit.

Very few skills have 'can not use without level 1' in their examples.

Skills with no penalty for unskilled use include - gambling, forgery, leader, tactics, air/raft, ATV, computer, mechanical, electronic, pilot, navigation, gunnery, steward, engineer, medical, jack of all trades.

Note also that some of the above require at least a skill level of 1 to qualify for a crew position, but there is nothing to say you can not attempt a saving throw if the situation requires it, it's just you will be looking for DMs from referee derived bonuses and penalties.

It is also worth pointing out that Travellers have that special something that sets them apart and puts them on the path to adventure (see LBB3 afterword). You can have a 7 term veteran that lacks the epiphany yo become a Traveller, while a fresh 18 year old (or 14 year old belter or barbarian) could set out for adventure with just their characteristics and wits - gaining actual skills during the game at the same rate they would during character generation.

 

[mike wightman]

And that's fine as a House Rule.
Where things fall down is that it's not a Rules As Written deal (at least, not in CT).

Actually it is a rule as written in original CT:

Skills and the referee: it is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.

Put another way read my sig.

As CT was revised and then rewritten as MT the nature of the game changed - IMHO the original intent of CT 77 lost a lot when this simple section was omitted.

 

[Grav_Moped]

...
Put another way read my sig.

As CT was revised and then rewritten as MT the nature of the game changed - IMHO the original intent of CT 77 lost a lot when this simple section was omitted.

RPGs were different back then -- pretty much all of them were. There's a lot to be said for the old ways...

 

[Fovean]

As far as skill use and acquisition goes I feel the Mongoose rule set has hit a real sweet spot.

And the 2e rules, on the very first page, state the rules should be used as “guidelines” and then encourages referee fiat in the service of better gameplay.